If you like to enjoy your Maker's Mark with a little water, then there's good news. You won't need to add your own water anymore because the distillery will do it for you. The Kentucky distillery behind Maker's Mark is taking some of the alcohol out of their product, going from 90 proof to 84 proof. "Fact is, demand for our bourbon is exceeding our ability to make it," wrote Maker's Mark executives Rob Samuels and Bill Samuels Jr. in an email to clients.

It's really a pretty ingenious way to deal with supply and demand. If you water down your bourbon, you can make more bottles to sell, and when you've lowered the alcohol content of your bourbon, nobody will buy it anymore. Problem solved!

And one would think that those loyal customers that are subjecting you to such backlash would at least...I dunno...try it before flipping their shit.

Why would tasting it be necessary? Again, you've spent years pimping your product based upon its formula, and then you changed the formula.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

And I see no way that Maker's doesn't make a 'premium' version that they do raise the price on so that folks that insist they can take the difference will have a way to spend more money on stuff that tastes the same.

It's just an odd rush to judgment with so many people already writing Makers off altogether without even seeing what they're going to produce.

It's not a rush to judgment at all. It's leaving a brand that's no longer exactly that brand, and a company that cannot be trusted. Again, Coca Cola learned this. New Coke tested better with people than old Coke in blind tests, but people refused to accept it. Don't blame the people. Blame the company for pissing on customer loyalty to the product itself after the company has tried to build up precisely that. A company can sometimes get away with the "new, improved taste" type of move with lesser known products, but even that tends to fail.

This sort of move isn't a guaranteed failure, but it carries a high risk. For me, as someone who's not a devout drinker of the product, I now know how they are willing to treat their customers, so there's no reason for me to patronize that company when there are so many alternatives.

Why would tasting it be necessary? Again, you've spent years pimping your product based upon its formula, and then you changed the formula.

It's not a rush to judgment at all. It's leaving a brand that's no longer exactly that brand, and a company that cannot be trusted. Again, Coca Cola learned this. New Coke tested better with people than old Coke in blind tests, but people refused to accept it. Don't blame the people. Blame the company for pissing on customer loyalty to the product itself after the company has tried to build up precisely that. A company can sometimes get away with the "new, improved taste" type of move with lesser known products, but even that tends to fail.

This sort of move isn't a guaranteed failure, but it carries a high risk. For me, as someone who's not a devout drinker of the product, I now know how they are willing to treat their customers, so there's no reason for me to patronize that company when there are so many alternatives.

FFS quit bringing up Coca Cola in your argument. They completely changed the taste of their product and even renamed it New Coke. Maker's is simply cutting their bourbon with more water which is going to lower the alcohol content as a percentage by volume. They are being very upfront about this and are taking action to make this change temporary. If you take the company at their word, the taste is the same.

Now I ask you, in what way is this the company "pissing on customer loyalty?"

Why would tasting it be necessary? Again, you've spent years pimping your product based upon its formula, and then you changed the formula.

It's not a rush to judgment at all. It's leaving a brand that's no longer exactly that brand, and a company that cannot be trusted. Again, Coca Cola learned this. New Coke tested better with people than old Coke in blind tests, but people refused to accept it. Don't blame the people. Blame the company for pissing on customer loyalty to the product itself after the company has tried to build up precisely that. A company can sometimes get away with the "new, improved taste" type of move with lesser known products, but even that tends to fail.

This sort of move isn't a guaranteed failure, but it carries a high risk. For me, as someone who's not a devout drinker of the product, I now know how they are willing to treat their customers, so there's no reason for me to patronize that company when there are so many alternatives.

... life will never be the same after the Great Maker's Mark failure of 2013. Whoa is me.....

Put two of them side by side and you won't notice a difference in taste or how gooned you're getting. But, when they tell you that a product you pay good money for is being watered down, you feel cheated.
Do what Wild Turkey did. Let the shelves run bare for a bit, build up your stock, build up the hype then release the hounds.
I'll stay with the Eagle Rare for now. Very nice.
Anyone here into Basil Hayden's? A guy a work swears by it.

Why would tasting it be necessary? Again, you've spent years pimping your product based upon its formula, and then you changed the formula.

It's not a rush to judgment at all. It's leaving a brand that's no longer exactly that brand, and a company that cannot be trusted. Again, Coca Cola learned this. New Coke tested better with people than old Coke in blind tests, but people refused to accept it. Don't blame the people. Blame the company for pissing on customer loyalty to the product itself after the company has tried to build up precisely that. A company can sometimes get away with the "new, improved taste" type of move with lesser known products, but even that tends to fail.

This sort of move isn't a guaranteed failure, but it carries a high risk. For me, as someone who's not a devout drinker of the product, I now know how they are willing to treat their customers, so there's no reason for me to patronize that company when there are so many alternatives.

How have they 'wronged' their customers? They've chosen to freeze the price point and try to produce a product that presents the same drinking experience without resorting to just jacking their prices up.

You're welcome to throw a bitch fit if you'd like, but don't call it something it's not. If you're going to stamp your feet and claim it's because they've 'wronged' their loyal drinkers without even trying it to see if they're still giving you the same experience, it's nothing more than a temper tantrum.

And it's nothing like 'new coke'. New coke failed because they made it taste like generic Pepsi. They were openly and obviously stating that they were trying to change their flavor to appeal to a new crowd and pissing on their loyal drinkers in the process. Maker's is doing the exact opposite, they're trying desperately to make sure that the taste is the same and they're trying to do so in a manner that prevents them from pricing some of their loyal drinkers out of the market.

I honestly think they should be applauded for taking the more gutsy approach and trying to please everyone by keeping the price the same while maintaining the same profile.